Your rating will go up to 900 much quicker if you play with better people. The people you play with keeps you at a low level. Like for example. I play with Jack all the time and I suck. see.. Actually his rating his higher than mine I think. dam

I think that the top 10 in INT should have all been playing ADV.....And Elliot Hicks should have been the winner in INT......

That's one perspective. Another is that the bottom half of the division should have been playing rec or novice. Who's kidding whom out here? The course for the second round had gobs of deuce opportunities (as in this weeny arm could get them): 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18. (And 17, 14 and 6 were there for longer arms.) I think there are many people who might consider spending their time practicing on the course rather than trying to create a mythical perfect competitive system out here. Not saying the system doesn't need improving tho. Do y'all think that ratings are fairly accurate basis for creating divisions?

I can see that, I just think that based on the scores alone, the competition in ADV would have been much better if the top 10 would have played ADV. I can also see the REC theory on there with regards to that though.

I think a lot of what is being called sandbagging is a result of the ratings division lines that were implemented in 2008.

Advanced fields were bigger last year because the cutoff for Adv was 915. I also think that a lot of players that were rated 900+ were playing up in Adv, so that contributed to big turnouts.

But, when the ratings divisions shifted to Adv being 935 and up, a lot of those low 900's Advanced players that were pretty much always donating got the chance to come back to Intermediate and have some success. I've brought this up on the PDGA boards before and the peanut gallery response is always the same, play where the PDGA says you should. The competition committee felt that these splits were fair to everyone. Couple that decision with the decision to let Pros that have accepted money play Advanced as long as their rating is low enough, and I'm starting to scratch my head and say "Wha happened?"

THey do do that. They take the worst out, after time and use it to get a more "true" reflection.

I believe the current method is the PDGA takes out only rounds that are 100+ points lower than your current rating. So you have to shoot approximately 10-11 strokes worse than your average score for one round. *pplbbbb*

The current PDGA ratings method is:

1. All ratings in events within a year of your most recent event played are considered when calculating your rating.

2. Any round that is either more than 2.5 standard deviations or over 100 points lower than your overall rating (whichever number is lower) are thrown out.

3. The last 25% of your rounds are double rated.This helps more accurately rate players that are either improving or declining quickly.

The local ratings I do are currently just an average just an overall average of your round ratings. *geek alert * I haven't written the algorithm in Excel that will calculate it the PDGA....it's a little more involved than I thought it was going to be, but that's what I'm planning on doing eventually. I think I'm going to have to get it out of Excel and put it into an Access database to make it work more efficiently. *geek alert off *

FWIW, the USGA calculates handicaps by using the best 10 of your 20 most recent rounds.

Chap

Logged

Missouri....our state animal is sterile, our state rock is lead, and we elected a dead guy to the U.S. Senate. Of course, he was the best candidate.